Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

When noncontradiction is the only possible premise it's not question begging.

Now you're begging -another- question.  See how this turns into a death spiral?

I can respond any way I like but whether I respond or not A still =A.

Since the question of dialetheism is whether or not a statament can be simultaneously true and false, responding that it can't be because it must be either true or false is mind numbingly question begging.  

I don't need a valid response to dialetheism besides "Dialetheism is based on an unsound premise and an equivocation between two different ways of looking at the same sentence."

Again, you can respond any way you like, but you're not going top be able to make that statement stick to every dialetheism even if you can make it stick to one.  

That's still about being right.

If you can't see the, admittedly, subtle distinction, that might explain why you respond the way you do.  We can be right for the wrong reasons...we do it all the time.

You have to start by defining "self" just like you have to start by defining what you mean by "this statement is not true". By itself "true" is meaningless. You may as well have said "this statement is not". And even if we granted that "this statement is not true" can have a meaning, it's still a case that it's only true or false from different perspectives at different times and not from the same perspective at the same time. This all just further demonstrates equivocation.

I doubt this discussion is going to be very productive Ham.  You're doing it again, lol. I'll let you have it with yourself, and I'll talk with these other guys.